Recent Responses
Does a proposition about the future have to be true today? If so does this preclude contingency and is every proposition of the future necessary?
Alexander George
August 6, 2007
(changed August 6, 2007)
Permalink
In connection with Professor Stairs' last two paragraphs, you might also read Question 997 and some of the further entries referred to there.
Log in to post comments
How long is forever? I know this question is ambiguous, but I have often tried to understand the heavy anchor of time and infinity, but I think it's really just too big to understand with the tools I've been given. I would really like to know someone's thoughts on the subject, and if the question is too ambiguous, is it because we don't have the 'brain power' to understand?
Alexander George
August 4, 2007
(changed August 4, 2007)
Permalink
You might ask: "How long is this performance going to last?" And you might get the answer: "Two hours." You might also ask, more ambitiously, how long is this universe going to last?" And you might get the answer (from physicists presumably): "Forever." Now, those two answers seem simila... Read more
I studied a bit of René Girard as an undergrad, and enjoyed his thinking quite a lot. What sort of reception, if any, do his works receive in mainstream philosophy these days? Are there any critiques or treatments of his work that you recommend?
Oliver Leaman
August 3, 2007
(changed August 3, 2007)
Permalink
I frequently come across discussions of Girard's work and its relevance to our understanding of religion. The most interesting writer on him in my opinion is Fergus Kerr and it would be worth looking up his work on Girard.
Log in to post comments
It seems to me that with moral dilemmas of Today, in the information age and in a democracy, people try to solve them by some balanced blend of different theories, say utilitarian consequentialism and kantian respect for the individual. For example, Torture and Abortion. It seems your ordinary citizen of today would consider both what is humane and dignifies the individual, but also tries to consider what the consequences are and how they might affect the greater number of people. Now, I'm sure as in every age there is a large group of intellectuals bemoaning the state of intellectual backwardness of Today, but I happen to believe that, as a whole, the average intelligence of society is a lot more than in the past. On that view, the hot button moral dilemmas of today are evolved questions of difficulty - they're morally "harder" than questions in the past. In part, I suppose, because new technology gave rise to new complex possible scenarios. Isn't it likely, given these assumptions then, that the moral theories of Yesterday are simply inadequate to the task of answering individual cases. Sure, the philosophers of the past might have had some clever way of shielding themselves from this possibility - that their theories would prove impossible in answering specific cases - but let's get real. If you know morality, but you can't answer a moral question, then you don't really know morality. Taking this further, could it be that the greatest philosophy of today is being created in the places where these questions are addressed - in courts, in discussion forums and yes, even in the newspapers, magazines and discussions between every day citizens. The question is: since today's society is so structurally different from those in the past that gave rise to the Great Philosophers, could it be simply that we have Great Philosophers among us, perhaps even more in number than in the past, but that their mode of expression has changed; rather than being exalted by a class of non-intellectuals and standing apart from society, they are the Joe and Jon and Harry among us - they're writing in our newspapers, teaching in our schools, etc. They aren't famous, they're simply among us, and perhaps coming up with ideas of a depth greater than that being found in the scholarly philosophical journals. Possible?
Oliver Leaman
August 3, 2007
(changed August 3, 2007)
Permalink
I don't agree with you that improvements in technology have led to a different conceptual level of philosophical problem. Society is certainly different from the past, but not that different. The same issues arise of justice, fairness, equality, welfare and so on, and that is why the classic... Read more
Is Catholic philosophy, like that of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Alasdair MacIntyre, etc., considered by modern philosophers to be true philosophy, or is it thought of more as philosophy in the service of dogma?
Oliver Leaman
August 3, 2007
(changed August 3, 2007)
Permalink
I think on the whole it is highly regarded as real philosophy. What is important is how the dogma is brought in. Were they to argue that the Catholic Church has the view that p and so p is obviously true regardless of what philosophy might suggest, then their views would not be interesting. But... Read more
Could aesthetics be considered an aspect of intuition? Or is the philosophical definition of intuition more specific? (I'm basing this on Herbert Spencer out of context, so you know ("Opinion is ultimately determined by the feelings, and not by the intellect").) Thank you.
Oliver Leaman
August 3, 2007
(changed August 3, 2007)
Permalink
There certainly does seem to be something subjective and based on feelings in our response to questions of beauty etc. but whether this is ultimately what determines our judgments seems dubious to me. If it were then argument and persuasion in aesthetics would be very limited, but it is not. On... Read more
Space and time are measured in hours and metres, value is measured in utility. In these three fundamental scales, I have read that zero and the unit are arbitrary. I can see that there is no beginning of time, and no bottom to the universe and no absolutely valueless state of affairs, but it seems perfectly sensible to talk of two states of affairs being of equal value, in which case the difference in value would be zero. Two durations could be of equal length, as could two bodies. So is there a non-arbitrary zero in space, time and value that corresponds to the difference in length, duration or utility between the equally long, enduring or valuable?
Allen Stairs
August 2, 2007
(changed August 2, 2007)
Permalink
It may be that there are two questions hidden here. You're right: if we can compare things in terms of length or duration or utility, then we'll sometimes be able to say that they're the same on this scale -- that if we subtract one value from the other, we get zero. But there's another questi... Read more
Is it ever rational to commit suicide?
Allen Stairs
August 2, 2007
(changed August 2, 2007)
Permalink
I would add this, however. While it certainly can be rational to commit suicide, people who are considering suicide aren't always in a good position to think about it rationally. That's for the obvious reason that many (perhaps most) people who are seriously thinking about killing themselves a... Read more
Do you think that gender roles are socially constructed? I realize it's reductionist not to consider both the biological and the social influences, but I was wondering which could be said to have a greater effect on average, and what arguments would support this. Is there any inherent difference between male and female mannerisms (not thought patterns, because I believe that the differences there have been established empirically, as far as these things can be), or are they assumed gradually due to social pressures and expectations? Also excuse my English! Thank you, Isabella
Oliver Leaman
August 2, 2007
(changed August 2, 2007)
Permalink
It is as you say difficult to know how one would unwind social and biological factors in determining gender roles, or indeed a whole variety of other roles also. If people were brought up in a rather different manner from the norm, and then exhibited rather different gender expectations and beh... Read more
Bonjour, I am considered an attractive 26 year old woman. I have at times been asked to model but never have. I find our culture's obsession with beauty unappealing and it has led me to sort of play down my beauty in dress. Should I be worried or at least concious of society and its issues around beauty? Or should I just strive to be the most beautiful I can be, disregarding other things, purely for the sake of aesthetics?
Jerrold Levinson
August 2, 2007
(changed August 2, 2007)
Permalink
I don't disagree with the first respondent, but I'll give you a somewhat different response, and taking my cue from the 'Bonjour' with which you open, will give it en français. (If the cue was misleading, I'll be happy to translate subsequently!) Premièrement, la beauté est une chose rare et... Read more